RABBIT INSPECTOR AND TRESPASS CHARGE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3047, 12 June 1926, Page 3

RABBIT INSPECTOR AND TRESPASS CHARGE.

Feilding, June 10. Is it permissible for a rabbit inspector of one board to enter upon the domain of another board,, without trespassing, was a question that arose at the Magistrate’s CiTurt to-day at Feilding when David Paslc, rabbit inspector to the Oroua Rabbit Board, was charged with being on property within the Kiwitea Rabbit Board and shooting rabbits on that property when such was prohibited in that locality. Mr. Elliott, for plaintiff, held that, as the appointment of defendant had been made by the Oroua Board, his (Pask’s) jurisdiction lay only within the gazetted area of that board. Mr. Cullinane, for the defence, submitted that it was a question of status —an inspector was an inspector and on being appointed by a boar, or theoretically by the Governor-General, was therefore immune from penalties under the Trespassing Act when his duties took him in any direction. Mi’. Cullinane quoted considerable extracts from the Rabbit Board’s Act and amendment to sustain his case.

His Worship (Mr. R, M. Watson, S.M.) held that he could not confine the activities of an inspector there was no provision in the Act to say that any person deemed an inspector should not go any where in the course of his duty in a gazetted Rabbit Board area. In this case Pask was an inspector within the meaning of the Act and was, therefore exempt from trespass penalties. His Worship dismissed the case, further remarking that he was surprised that an inspector, who had special provision under the Act, should have done such a thing.